Suwon District Court-2013-Gu Group-1359 ( October 24, 2013)

Since the value on the standard balance sheet cannot be considered as the actual transaction price, the conversion price shall be the acquisition price.

The value stated in the standard balance sheet submitted at the time of income tax return refers to the value of assets of land and buildings appraised at that time, not to mean the actual transaction value at the time of acquisition, but to be recognized as the actual transaction value only when the book value is confirmed

Article 97 (Calculation of Necessary Expenses in Transfer Income Tax)

2013Nu13183 Revocation of disposition of imposing capital gains tax

GaO

O Head of tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2013Gudan1359 Decided April 24, 2013

March 5, 2017

March 26, 2014

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 651,65,030 for the Plaintiff on October 1, 2011 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. The part citing the judgment of the court of first instance

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows: (a) the dismissal of the judgment of the first instance court or the addition of the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion in the following paragraphs is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance; and (b) thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article

In dividing "in distributing "in proportion to the standard market price that will be the second 10th one, it shall be divided into the standard market price (in calculating the acquisition value by dividing the transfer value by dividing the transfer value by the ratio of the standard market price of commercial buildings in proportion to the ratio of the standard market price of commercial buildings on the basis of the sales contract 3:7)" and the following fiveth fiveth of theO shall be added:

⑤ 나아가 원고가 이 사건 토지와 건물을 취득할 당시에는 원칙적으로 기준시가 를 이용하여 양도소득금액을 정하던 시기로서 그로부터 20년가량 지난 시점에 그 일부인 이 사건 각 쟁점 부동산을 양도한 경위와 내용 등을 고려할 때, 원고로서는 양도 소득세 과세를 염두에 두고 장부가액을 실지거래가액으로 기재할 만한 특별한 이유가 없었을 것으로 보이는 점(이 사건 각 쟁점 부동산 양도 이전까지는 양도가액 및 취득 가액을 기준시가로 하여 양도소득세 신고가 이루어진 것으로 보인다), 또한 원고는 부동산임대사업자로서 1995년부터 이 사건 토지와 건물을 장부에 기재하는 등으로 장부 를 작성한 것으로 보이는데, 그 기준시가에 유사한 금액이 장부에 임의로 기재되었을 가능성도 있는 등 원고의 장부에 기재된 가액을 실지 거래가액으로 볼 아무런 근거가 없을 뿐만 아니라 그 장부가액이 실지 거래가액을 제대로 반영하는 것인지도 불분명한 점[실제로 장부가액을 기초로 한 ㎡당 건축비 370,133원(≒장부상 취득가액 2,963,232,000원 + 건물면적 8,005.84㎡)은 1994년도 건설교통부 고시에 따른 표준건축비가 ㎡당 839,000원이고, 이 사건 건물의 설계도면을 근거로 산정된 예상공사비가 ㎡당 649,650원인 점 등에 비추어 실지거래가액으로 받아들이기 어렵다] 등을 종합하여 보면, 피고가 내세우는 사정들은 장부가액을 실지거래가액으로 추정할 만한 것으로 보 기 어렵다.

2. Additional determination

The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff and the Industrial Bank of Korea prepared a sales contract by dividing the transfer value of each of the instant real estate into the land and buildings in general, even though the instant real estate is divided into sectional ownership, and that this constitutes the case where the distinction between the value of the land and the building is unclear, without any objective grounds.

Article 100 (2) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10408, Dec. 27, 2010) provides that where the transfer value is calculated based on the actual transaction value pursuant to paragraph (1) and where land, buildings, etc. are acquired or transferred at the same time, it shall be divided and entered, but where the distinction between the value of land, buildings, etc. is unclear, it shall be calculated based on the standard market price at the time of acquisition

In this case, the following circumstances, which can be seen by comprehensively taking into account the number of evidence, number A to 8 to 130 million won (including household numbers), and number 11, and the testimony of witnesses at the court, the Plaintiff, as a real estate rental business operator, has transferred each of the issues to the OO bank, which is the lessee, to classify the land and buildings price through appraisal for the purpose of determining the purchase price based on the calculation of objective transaction price in the process of the price negotiations, and thereafter, the Plaintiff and the Industrial Bank of Korea agreed to distinguish the price of each of the issues of this case from the land and buildings for the purpose of determining the purchase price based on appraisal at the Korea Appraisal Board (Evidence No. 5). Considering that the transaction price of each of the real estate is 4 billion won (3.2 billion won, building price is 3 billion won, and building price is 3.4 billion won,00 billion won, and that it is difficult to view that the price of the land and the building price is 3.4 billion won,00 billion won or more, and that the appraisal price of the real estate price is determined by the Plaintiff.

3. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.